|
Capitalism (pg. 13)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vector A
1. Implement communism.
2. Everyone gets a lot poorer.
3. Population decreases due to people starving / going without medical care.
4. People who survive can't afford to pollute as much because communism made them poor.
5. Problem solved! |
Didn't the Soviet Union cause loads of environmental disasters though? |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by wotyzoid
Now if you're just talking about the "issue" of consumption, communism does address it. "To each according to his needs". You distrubute on the basis of necessecity, not the madness we have now. |
Well this goes right back to my original point. What do we need? If the social expectation is for each worker to be entitled to the big house, cars, holiday, etc. as a standard of living, Communism solves nothing. Industrial output will rise to furnish everyone on the planet with these commodities. Without the change in values I describe, Communism leads to the same images you used to denigrate Capitalism.
To go back to my earlier point, environmental disaster is a far, far more pressing issue than equality. We need to tackle it with all our focus and commitment. I think the danger of your line of thinking is that you are almost literally saying "There's no point in trying under this system, the system imposes cultural values and we need to change the system first." I'm trying to point out to you that this is dangerous because it encourages people to not even try to make a difference, because you're saying it's hopeless under Capitalism. And yet we'll never reach the revolution if we don't tackle this enormous existential threat first.
Does all of this make sense? |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
To go back to my earlier point, environmental disaster is a far, far more pressing issue than equality. We need to tackle it with all our focus and commitment. I think the danger of your line of thinking is that you are almost literally saying "There's no point in trying under this system, the system imposes cultural values and we need to change the system first." I'm trying to point out to you that this is dangerous because it encourages people to not even try to make a difference, because you're saying it's hopeless under Capitalism. And yet we'll never reach the revolution if we don't tackle this enormous existential threat first.
Does all of this make sense? |
Absolutely, but that's a misrepresentation of what i'm saying so I can't really be responsible for that. If anything I'm saying the problems is much more fundamentally engrained and we should take more drastic measures not less. |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Well this goes right back to my original point. What do we need? If the social expectation is for each worker to be entitled to the big house, cars, holiday, etc. as a standard of living, Communism solves nothing. Industrial output will rise to furnish everyone on the planet with these commodities. Without the change in values I describe, Communism leads to the same images you used to denigrate Capitalism.
|
The social expectation became such not on its own, this is a fundamental key point you are choosing to overlook. What we need is what we need. Food, water, healthcare, education. You are asking very basic questions that I dont think you've thought all the way through. You're not looking at the structural problems at all, only the cosmetic problems. |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
Corporations and capitalism don't take people out of poverty, they hire cheap labor.
People dont drive because they want to, they drive because they have to.
You have to take the blindfold off. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by wotyzoid
The social expectation became such not on its own, this is a fundamental key point you are choosing to overlook. What we need is what we need. Food, water, healthcare, education. You are asking very basic questions that I dont think you've thought all the way through. You're not looking at the structural problems at all, only the cosmetic problems. |
My fiancee was born in Communism. Her entire family were. They all knew that life was better in the West, and they all wanted those luxuries. Do you really that as long as people can eat, drink and have access to a hospital, they'll be satisfied? That pleasure seeking, accumulation of luxuries, desire to travel... all of these are just Capitalist inventions everyone will happily shed? That might have been vaguely realistic in Marx's lifetime when the average worker was a peasant or lived in an industrial slum. Not now. There's obviously far more to the balance than that, and now you're being remarkably vague about an issue that is clearly very complex.
Frankly, so much of your viewpoint depends on this begged question that the economic system completely dictates people's values. There's clearly no yielding on that idea, but I'll just repeat the inherent contradiction that Lews already pointed out. If we can't change our collective values while under Capitalism, how is revolution even possible? |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
There's obviously far more to the balance than that, and now you're being remarkably vague about an issue that is clearly very complex. |
You're asking vague questions. What the hell do you expect?
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Frankly, so much of your viewpoint depends on this begged question that the economic system completely dictates people's values. There's clearly no yielding on that idea, |
Hold up. Why is there no yielding? The environment is not a factor of one's behavior? |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
It was a rhetorical question, highlighting the difficulty of the issue and the potential problem.
Environment is clearly a factor, but Capitalism is only an economic system and only part of social environment. Again, the begged question is how pervasive itso influence is on values. I think I've made several clear points demonstrating how human over-consumption is not a creation of economics and how the human desire for excess won't vanish along with the free market. |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
Believe what you want, but not every complex problem requires a super complex solution. Sometimes it is simple solutions that get the job done.
There is nothing wrong the excess and abundance of things that arent detrimental to us and the eco-systems. Excess is not the culprit here, you're being incredibly simple minded and stubborn. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by wotyzoid
Excess is not the culprit here, you're being incredibly simple minded and stubborn. |
In terms of environmental crisis, it most emphatically is. Efficiency and clean energy are ways of negating it, but the problem is fundamentally one of our species exceeding the capacity of our planet. |
|
|
| wotyzoid |
You're not even trying anymore. Are you talking about overpopulation? Efficiency? Efficiency to do what? Work?
For the zillionth time. I'm talking about the ing money. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
Kenny, I know exactly what you're talking about. You've not gone any deeper than the classic slogans. I don't know how many long posts I have to write out where I tell you I think you're barking up the wrong tree by focusing on capital as if it unlocks the solution to the problem YOU opened this thread by highlighting.
I think this conversation is drawing to a natural close. For what it's worth, efficiency means recycling, better utilisation of resources in manufacturing and so on. I'm referring to the notion you touched on earlier that if we just make our energy clean enough and our manufacturing green enough, everyone can keep up the current lifestyle and the planet will be fine. For me, quashing that collective fallacy is the real revolution we need.
I've made a great effort here to be perfectly civil to you, even though you've committed a lot of debating crimes in this thread I could have picked apart in pointless detail. Try and hold your temper if you really want a more genial discussion. |
|
|
|
|
